Communal Violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh
On November 24, 2023, communal violence broke out in Sambhal district, Uttar Pradesh, after a trial court ordered an ex-parte survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid.
The petitioners claimed the mosque was built on the site of an ancient Hindu temple, Hari Har Mandir, allegedly destroyed by Mughal emperor Babur in 1529.
The violence led to the death of 4 people, highlighting tensions around the origin of mosques in India and the potential violation of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
Justice Chandrachud's Remarks in the Gyanvapi Case
In 2022, a petition was filed by five women seeking year-round access to pray at a shrine within the Gyanvapi mosque, claiming Hindu idols were located there.
The Varanasi court ordered a survey to verify this
During a hearing, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stated that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, does not bar investigations into the status of religious sites as they existed on August 15, 1947, as long as the character of the site isn’t changed.
These remarks stirred a political controversy, with critics claiming it opened the door for more disputes over religious sites, challenging the intentions behind the 1991 Act.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh accused the remarks of setting a dangerous precedent for similar future claims.
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
The Act was introduced to prevent communal tensions by preserving the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947.
It prohibits the conversion of any religious site from one religion to another.
The Act does not apply to the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute in Ayodhya, as it was already sub judice when the law was passed.
There have been ongoing petitions questioning the Act’s constitutionality, from those who argue that it prevents Hindus from reclaiming temples that were allegedly demolished by Muslim rulers.
Despite these petitions, the government has not yet submitted a response to the Supreme Court, leading to a delay in clarifying the law’s application.
COMMENTS